To fair the rest of the peloton let him win this race. Their tactics were terrible. Dan Martin also needs a class in not going too soon.

I think going early was the right choice in this instance. Waiting until Valverde shifts into fifth gear in the final ~500m isn't an option either is it? Trying to surprise him there was the only option imo.

Cookster15 wrote:I wonder what Dan Martin is thinking? I reckon he was just ripped off a monument win. In 2016 Valverde was sublime in 2017 it is definitely rediculous.

Any evidence to suggest Martin is riding any cleaner than Valverde; apart from the fact he is 2nd all the time instead of first. This is the same Martin, after all, who did to everyone else on the last climb what Valverde did to him.

Cookster15 wrote:I wonder what Dan Martin is thinking? I reckon he was just ripped off a monument win. In 2016 Valverde was sublime in 2017 it is definitely rediculous.

Any evidence to suggest Martin is riding any cleaner than Valverde; apart from the fact he is 2nd all the time instead of first. This is the same Martin, after all, who did to everyone else on the last climb what Valverde did to him.

Well he hasn't previously had a doping ban like Valverde, and Valverde is beating him for fun while whistling dixie......

Cookster15 wrote:I wonder what Dan Martin is thinking? I reckon he was just ripped off a monument win. In 2016 Valverde was sublime in 2017 it is definitely rediculous.

Well Martin knows the score. Either cycling isn't clean like he's said in the past(After all he was part of the Garmin , everyone stopped in 2006 PR brigade)and he needs to get himself a better program.

Ha ha, some of you guys are really funny. A convicted doper finishes 152 places ahead of another convicted doper and some of you actually think that the guy who only finishes 151 places ahead of a convicted doper has been proven clean because he couldn't beat the one other convicted doper?

Hugh Januss wrote:Ha ha, some of you guys are really funny. A convicted doper finishes 152 places ahead of another convicted doper and some of you actually think that the guy who only finishes 151 places ahead of a convicted doper has been proven clean because he couldn't beat the one other convicted doper?

Sure, he's more or less certainly also a doper, but I do think it's fair to say that he is less obvious than Valverde.

Cookster15 wrote:I wonder what Dan Martin is thinking? I reckon he was just ripped off a monument win. In 2016 Valverde was sublime in 2017 it is definitely rediculous.

Well Martin knows the score. Either cycling isn't clean like he's said in the past(After all he was part of the Garmin , everyone stopped in 2006 PR brigade)and he needs to get himself a better program.

Or maybe 2nd place is just his ceiling. He's at a team with the likes of Gilbert and Alaphilippe. I think it's safe to say he'd be getting the best program if he wanted one. Perhaps, you know, that even between riders who may be doping, there are other factors which go into deciding the win.

Hugh Januss wrote:Ha ha, some of you guys are really funny. A convicted doper finishes 152 places ahead of another convicted doper and some of you actually think that the guy who only finishes 151 places ahead of a convicted doper has been proven clean because he couldn't beat the one other convicted doper?

What sort of argument is that, I assume your referring to Simon Yates who obviously is no where near his best form by your logic everyone who finished the race is a doper because they finished ahead of him.

Hugh Januss wrote:Ha ha, some of you guys are really funny. A convicted doper finishes 152 places ahead of another convicted doper and some of you actually think that the guy who only finishes 151 places ahead of a convicted doper has been proven clean because he couldn't beat the one other convicted doper?

What sort of argument is that, I assume your referring to Simon Yates who obviously is no where near his best form by your logic everyone who finished the race is a doper because they finished ahead of him.

I'm amazed by the number of people (at cn, but especially elsewhere) who choose to believe that a leading explanation of Valverde dominating is the "long run" effects of doping a long time ago.

As far as I can tell, the only evidence these effects are a real thing that exists comes from the lab, using steroids on rats. Quite a bit of extrapolation to go from there to humans, oxygen peds, and much longer time gaps (rats don't live that long!)

But I suppose if you are committed to the narrative that the sport became clean with Sky's emergence yet do not want to hail Valverde as a clean champion of the clean era, that's what you have to believe

Irondan wrote:During the post race interview Valverde said that he "had a lot more left in the end", meaning he didn't even have to go very deep at all to beat Martin and the rest of the scrubs that wasted their Sunday afternoon chasing unicorns..

Serious Sam, I am more inclined to think that the new class of PEDS being used today help him perform a lot better in comparison with other riders. As opposed to before. Before he had a smaller margin.

And you have to admit that after riders being warned or banned the majority come back weaker. So coming back stronger today you have to admit that there has to be a high level of talent.

Cookster15 wrote:I wonder what Dan Martin is thinking? I reckon he was just ripped off a monument win. In 2016 Valverde was sublime in 2017 it is definitely rediculous.

Any evidence to suggest Martin is riding any cleaner than Valverde; apart from the fact he is 2nd all the time instead of first. This is the same Martin, after all, who did to everyone else on the last climb what Valverde did to him.

Well he hasn't previously had a doping ban like Valverde, and Valverde is beating him for fun while whistling dixie......

So when Dan Martin beat Valverde in 2013 or 2014 or some such, was he doping then? Or was Valverde clean then?

Obviously Valverde doped in the past. But if we are pointing at him doping in the NOW, then that implicates his competitors as well. If its easy for one guy to get away with it, others can to. The lazy narrative of the one bad guy cheating but everyone (especially one's favourite riders) doing it for the moral good of sport, is a unrealistic one.

SeriousSam wrote:I'm amazed by the number of people (at cn, but especially elsewhere) who choose to believe that a leading explanation of Valverde dominating is the "long run" effects of doping a long time ago.

As far as I can tell, the only evidence these effects are a real thing that exists comes from the lab, using steroids on rats. Quite a bit of extrapolation to go from there to humans, oxygen peds, and much longer time gaps (rats don't live that long!)

But I suppose if you are committed to the narrative that the sport became clean with Sky's emergence yet do not want to hail Valverde as a clean champion of the clean era, that's what you have to believe

The sport is a cesspit.

The testing a joke.

The UCI clowns.

To think that teams would hire clean riders to race against doped ones is taking the pi$$!

Cookster15 wrote:I wonder what Dan Martin is thinking? I reckon he was just ripped off a monument win. In 2016 Valverde was sublime in 2017 it is definitely rediculous.

Any evidence to suggest Martin is riding any cleaner than Valverde; apart from the fact he is 2nd all the time instead of first. This is the same Martin, after all, who did to everyone else on the last climb what Valverde did to him.

Well he hasn't previously had a doping ban like Valverde, and Valverde is beating him for fun while whistling dixie......

So when Dan Martin beat Valverde in 2013 or 2014 or some such, was he doping then? Or was Valverde clean then?

Obviously Valverde doped in the past. But if we are pointing at him doping in the NOW, then that implicates his competitors as well. If its easy for one guy to get away with it, others can to. The lazy narrative of the one bad guy cheating but everyone (especially one's favourite riders) doing it for the moral good of sport, is a unrealistic one.

Hitch nice try, but observations about Valverde today are not just LBL but from the context of his entire career, his age and his performances in the last two seasons against his own performances of seasons past which have caught my eye. Valverde is not a late bloomer like Horner, he turned pro in 2002. Yes Valverde is a great talent but Dan Martin hasn't been podiuming grand tours at 35 or 36 after turning pro nearly 15 years ago either. Most people expect performances to gradually decline with age but now we have to put up watching a veteran regularly finishing ahead of riders in their physiological prime years of 28 - 32 - not just in hilly classics but in Grand Tours supposedly riding support for Quintana (last years Tour). If Piti podiums the TdF this year you will have some explaining to do. Hopefully I am wrong.

Last edited by Cookster15 on 24 Apr 2017 19:16, edited 1 time in total.

Escarabajo wrote:Serious Sam, I am more inclined to think that the new class of PEDS being used today help him perform a lot better in comparison with other riders. As opposed to before. Before he had a smaller margin.

And you have to admit that after riders being warned or banned the majority come back weaker. So coming back stronger today you have to admit that there has to be a high level of talent.

Escarabajo wrote:Serious Sam, I am more inclined to think that the new class of PEDS being used today help him perform a lot better in comparison with other riders. As opposed to before. Before he had a smaller margin.

And you have to admit that after riders being warned or banned the majority come back weaker. So coming back stronger today you have to admit that there has to be a high level of talent.

They all have a high level of talent. That is never in doubt.

The responses to the levels and amounts of PEDs is really the difference. Add in a motor and who knows what counts.

Valverde kept his mouth shut and stayed out of the media during his ban iirc. Most don't.

Movistar are a big money team and money in sport talks. Maybe people are buying their burial of their test results. it worked for the Russians for a while. It probably works for many many others.

Valverde is past his talent peak. So there is something else at play and that comes down to response, new PED, quantities and possibly a motor.

Escarabajo wrote:Serious Sam, I am more inclined to think that the new class of PEDS being used today help him perform a lot better in comparison with other riders. As opposed to before. Before he had a smaller margin.

And you have to admit that after riders being warned or banned the majority come back weaker. So coming back stronger today you have to admit that there has to be a high level of talent.

They all have a high level of talent. That is never in doubt.

The responses to the levels and amounts of PEDs is really the difference. Add in a motor and who knows what counts.

Valverde kept his mouth shut and stayed out of the media during his ban iirc. Most don't.

Movistar are a big money team and money in sport talks. Maybe people are buying their burial of their test results. it worked for the Russians for a while. It probably works for many many others.

Valverde is past his talent peak. So there is something else at play and that comes down to response, new PED, quantities and possibly a motor.

Still it is incredible and amazing to beat all those guys in their prime age in the age of 37 even using any PEDs ... .